This is absolutely a head-scratcher for small orgs, but is pretty convenient (a convenience easily worth $185k) for the big brands. I think their example of .apple is a silly one. A better example might be P&G, J&J, Pfizer, The Pepsi Company, etc.
This is absolutely a head-scratcher for small orgs, but is pretty convenient (a convenience easily worth $185k) for the big brands. I think their example of .apple is a silly one. A better example might be P&G, J&J, Pfizer, The Pepsi Company, etc.
But for big companies in the food & beverage, homecare sectors etc, they have a lot of sub brands. They want to de-emphasise their company name (because nobody cares about them) and sell the brand.
For example, do you know off the top of your head the brands of P&G?
However, if I told you Old Spice, Gilette, Oral-B, Pantene etc, it starts to make a lot more sense to have .oldspice, .gillette .oralb .pantene and so on.
http://apple/ might make sense.
But what would .pantene do? blonde.prov.pantene? They are not going to subdomain them under .pg.
This is what I'm talking about. Apple doesn't do that sort of thing, making them a silly example for a TLD.